MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013411260 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7502_9

Comparing the Relative Fit of Various Factor Models of the Self-Consciousness Scale in Two Independent Samples

2000· article· en· W2013411260 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)Social anxietyConsciousnessIncremental validityConstruct validitySocial psychologyTest validityValidityPsychometricsStructural equation modelingAnxietyClinical psychologyPower (physics)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research shows that using highly self-aware participants yields studies of higher reliability, validity, and statistical power; dispositional self-awareness is commonly measured using the Fenigstein Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). This study used confirmatory factor analysis to compare various factor models that may underlie that scale. Two independent student samples (296 from Bernstein, Teng, & Garbin, 1986, and 350 from a large Canadian university) completed the scale. Using 6 fit criteria, results from both samples supported the Burnkrant and Page (1984) 4-factor model, namely, that self-consciousness consists of 3 principle scales: Social Anxiety, Public Self-Consciousness, and Private Self-Consciousness (divided into Internal State Awareness and Self-Reflectiveness). We discuss the psychometric implications of enhancing scale reliability, validity, and self-awareness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it